Mills v. Bishop

Connecticut Superior Court

Mills v. Bishop

1 Kirby 4

DecidedFebruary 15, 1786

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Kirby 4 (Mills v. Bishop) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mills v. Bishop, 1 Kirby 4 (Colo. Ct. App. 1786).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Couet.

Motion for amendment is unnecessary: For the statute, which enacts, “ That when any plea shall be made' in abatement of any writ or process, before the Superior or County Court, or before any assistant or justice [6]*6of the peace, that if it be ruled in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff shall have liberty to amend that defect on his paying down to the defendant his costs to that time; and then to proceed as he might have done if no such defect had been; ” allows the plaintiff always to amend his writ on paying cost: And if he doth not cure the defect by amendment, the defendant may again plead in abatement.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Couet.

Motion for amendment is unnecessary: For the statute, which enacts, “ That when any plea shall be made' in abatement of any writ or process, before the Superior or County Court, or before any assistant or justice [6]*6of the peace, that if it be ruled in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff shall have liberty to amend that defect on his paying down to the defendant his costs to that time; and then to proceed as he might have done if no such defect had been; ” allows the plaintiff always to amend his writ on paying cost: And if he doth not cure the defect by amendment, the defendant may again plead in abatement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Kirby 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-bishop-connsuperct-1786.